Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [West Constables] West Kingdom Constable's Report

Expand Messages
  • Liane Kennedy
    You are absolutely correct Alberic. Like I said- I believe that OFFICERS of the SCA -acting in their OFFICIAL capacity- should not call the Police unless it
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      You are absolutely correct Alberic. Like I said- I believe that OFFICERS of the SCA -acting in
      their OFFICIAL capacity- should not call the Police unless it is nessesary. I agree that this Good
      gentle also *should* not call the Police unless it is nessesary. But- since she is acting on her
      own, as a tax-paying Citizen of this State- then that's her choice- as much as I disagree with it.
      However, when the Constabulary calls the Police as part of their Official duties they are making
      that choice for the SCA Inc, not for themselves. Thus, the Constabulary- acting as Officers of a
      Non-Profit Org- should not be telling a Taxpayer what she should do as a Private Citizen.

      I hope I have made myself clear. A Constable- acting as an Officer of the SCA Inc- is different
      than a taxpayer- acting as a Private Citizen. If you as Albert Estacio- another private Citizen-
      wanted to chide her about wasting your tax dollars- then, yes, that's fine & good. But not as
      Alberic Wolf, a Safety Officer of the SCA inc. Unless of course, you get clearance from the
      Executive VP for Legal Affairs or the Society Seneschal, etc

      As said Officer you can & should request that she *also* inform the Constabulary when she calls the
      Police- so that we can assist the Police.

      Wulfstan- not an officer.




      alberic_wolf wrote:

      > <snip>
      > > I thus ask His Majesty to not give said permission for said
      > lecture, although a "please let us know
      > > what's happening" REQUEST is reasonable, and I suggest it myself.
      > >
      > > Wulfstan Darroldson - not an Officer
      >
      > The reason I wish to talk to the person, is that this person feels it
      > necessary to
      > call the police any time they are bothered, at all. This could build
      > up to this person alone
      > calling the police several times during an event - for even
      > inconsequencial things. Things that the
      > Constabulary can handle with no problem. I know this first-hand
      > because I have dealt with
      > this person on other situations. I did not indicate that we would
      > take her phone away, just
      > that we need to let her know our policies and procedures to avoid
      > this problem in the future.
      > Per your words Wulfstan, quoted below, you did not believe we should
      > call the police for
      > every little incident, including people under the legal drinking age
      > who were drunk at our events.
      > Your recent post to this list seems to indicate that you have changed
      > your position.
      >
      > Their Majesties, Their Royal Highnesses, The Kingdom Seneschal, and I
      > discussed this and they have already given me their permission and
      > encouragement.
      >
      > Alberic
      >
      > In message #100, Wulfstan wrote:
      > The Police have no interest to be bothered in the case of
      > infractions or
      > minor misdomeaners, unless that person is a "clear & preent danger".
      > Right now our Police are pushed to the limit with the War, it is
      > wrong to be bothering them over such matters. In some cities, the
      > extra duties called upon to protect against terrorism and protestors
      > is costing millions of dollars in Police overtime. Let's not add to
      > this. The Police are trying to protect our lives, not the SCA's
      > insurance policy. My SJPD contact, a Captain who is on the Committee
      > with me, agrees 100% with this. He asks that folks not call the
      > Police "for minor matters", but to not hesitate in case of a possible
      > emergency.
      >
      > In message #125, Wulfstan wrote:
      > Yes, it is illegal for an adult under 21 to drink. It is
      > also illegal to be "intoxicated in public' and to carry a
      > 'dirk or dagger concealed", and we'd have the Police out
      > constantly for both. However, we are not "law enforcement
      > officers", it is not our duty to enforce every minor
      > violation of Code or Law. In fact, we certainly should make
      > no pretense of doing so, as that gets us into legal hot
      > waters, too.
      >
      > Now, we violated no law in calling the Police either. If
      > circumstances and judgement indicate a need to call the
      > Police, that's fine. Even for "public intoxication".
      > However, that needs to be a judgement call, and something I
      > hope will not be done too often.
      >
      > Note also that there is a "high" risk of Domestic terrorism,
      > not to mention protests- and our Police are strained to the
      > limit as is. We do not need to add additional burden to
      > them- not at this time, or perhaps at any time. Besides my
      > Oath of Fealty, I have also sworn to "uphold & defend the
      > Constitution...etc". Wasting Police resources in time of
      > National Emergency would strain that Oath, also.
      > In message #132, Wulfstan wrote:
      > And there is the larger view to consider- we are not only citizens of
      > the SCA, but of the USA and California. We do not need to add to the
      > burden of the Police at a time like this.
      > In message #144, Wulfstan wrote:
      > Calling the Police for every violation of mundane Law-
      > Federal, State, & local is foolish and wasteful. We would
      > have the Police out there every five minutes. Note that
      > this makes no distinction- we call the Police for EVERY
      > violation of "Modern Law". First thing- we call the police
      > for nearly every SCAdian with a "dirk or dagger" being
      > carried "concealed". That would haul off some third of our
      > populace on the spot (but of course the Police would rarely
      > bother to make the arrest). Next- we also would have to
      > call the Police for every person, even those over 21, who is
      > "intoxicated in public"- dozens of calls on a "good"
      > Saturday night. Then of course- for parking violations- we
      > find those annoying, sure, and I have dearly wanted to call
      > a Tow truck a few times, but here we'd have to call. Some
      > one smoking a joint- even in the privacy of their tent- call
      > the Police. And in many states, although thank God this
      > isn't one of them, we would have to call the police if any
      > of our gay members had sex- sodomy you know. In some
      > states- even married heterosexual couples having oral or
      > anal sex is "sodomy", and illegal. In others- adultery is-
      > and don't tell me we going to call the Police for adultery
      > in that State. In some areas there is a 10MPH sign out-
      > call the police every time we see someone going 11MPH?
      > That's the law, you know. Taillight out? Call the Police.
      > Oh, and I know many SCAdians work "under the table"- and I
      > happen to know that is Tax Evasion. Possession of a milk
      > crate is a violation of CA Ag code. No, really. Carries a
      > $500 fine, if I remember right, but Ivan might know for
      > sure. Damn- don't tell anyone, but I have several thousand
      > dollars of violations of "modern law" within a few feet of
      > me.
      >
      > Of course- we do not condone the violation of mundane law,
      > either. Just becuase I fail to call the Police for every
      > single violation of "modern law" does not mean I suggest we
      > flout it. The reverse is true. Do call the Police- if we
      > NEED to.
      >
      > Get the point? Do I need to go on? SCOTUS (that's the
      > Supreme Court if you don't know) pointed out (in a decision
      > about "profiling") that an average citizen, going about his
      > normal daily affairs, likely violates several/many laws
      > during that day.
      >
      > This is such a foolish "policy" that words fail me. No- I
      > will not follow this foolish policy. I will not call the
      > Police for every violation of "Modern Law". Doing so would
      > not only violate (IMHO) my Oath of Fealty to the Coronet to
      > serve him wisely & well, but would violate my oath of Office
      > as a Federal Agent.
      >
      > If we did follow this policy- the Police would have evey
      > right to arrest you somewhere after you'd made your tenth
      > call for that day- if they hadn't told you off before then.
      > It is wasteful of MY Tax dollars, and of the resources of
      > the folks we rely upon to protect us & our families.
      > Consider that for every Squad car out answering our call,
      > there is one that isn't stopping real crime. So- when some
      > Liquor store clerk gets killed beacuse the local cop is out
      > at an SCA event, instead of his neighborhood patrol- let's
      > be sure to tell his widow & kids "we were following Policy"-
      > some 19 yo had a can of beer.
      >
      > In message #146, Wulfstan wrote:
      > It is simply that for some violations I
      > would rely on our own internal sanctions rather than mindlessly
      > dialling 911
      > every time. We must weigh the impact on the Police dept too, we
      > should not be
      > selfish. Some Dept's have been incurring millions of dollars of
      > overtime
      > during this War- not to mention many Police Officers are Reservists.
      > I choose
      > not to add to this burden unless it is necessary. But, when good
      > judgement,
      > and the "facts & circumstances" say that it is necessary, we should
      > not
      > hesitate to call the Police either.
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > wkconstabulary-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com or go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wkconstabulary
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Liane Kennedy
      Note that I also want to say that I completely understand Alberic s problem with this Lady, and his desire to talk to her about it. I also agree- based upon
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Note that I also want to say that I completely understand Alberic's problem with this Lady, and his
        desire to talk to her about it. I also agree- based upon the limited info provided here. BUT , we all
        have to make sure we know what Hat we are wearing when we do things like this. I myself, here on this
        board- wore the wrong hat once when I disagree with Alberic- it's easy to do. In my "mundane" life, I
        wear 3 hats- a private taxpaying registered voter, a San Jose City Commisioner, and a US Treasury
        Officer. An opinion or dictate expressed while I was wearing the wrong hat could get me fired- or
        worse. For example, let us say I don't like a new Tax Law. I can write a letter to my Congresswoman
        as 1 or 3, and that would be OK. But if I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" on that subject and signed it
        as a US Treasury Officer, I'd get in serious trouble- and would deserve it.

        When you speak as a Constable- especially the Kingdom Constable- you wear a different "hat" than as a
        private citizen or as a member of the Populace. You represent the SCA Inc, not just the Constables or
        not even just the West Kingdom.

        Do what you think is best, but consider carefuly WHO you are when you do it.

        Wulfstan- not an Officer.
      • Lady Kateryn de Ver
        ... of the SCA Inc- is different ... Estacio- another private Citizen- ... that s fine & good. But not as ... you get clearance from the ... Constabulary when
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > I hope I have made myself clear. A Constable- acting as an Officer
          of the SCA Inc- is different
          > than a taxpayer- acting as a Private Citizen. If you as Albert
          Estacio- another private Citizen-
          > wanted to chide her about wasting your tax dollars- then, yes,
          that's fine & good. But not as
          > Alberic Wolf, a Safety Officer of the SCA inc. Unless of course,
          you get clearance from the
          > Executive VP for Legal Affairs or the Society Seneschal, etc
          >
          > As said Officer you can & should request that she *also* inform the
          Constabulary when she calls the
          > Police- so that we can assist the Police.
          >
          > Wulfstan- not an officer.
          >


          Ok, big suprise here, I disagree......<grin> As a private
          citizen "chiding" her about the use of her own personal phone to call
          a police department and wasting tax payer dollars - would be stupid.
          And, basically it would be none of your business, she could tell you
          to take a flying leap and be totally correct to do so!

          However, as the person responsible for safety and security at a large
          event, who is by extension also concerned for the welfare of the
          other 800 people or so on site, and who is concerned that the SCA
          reputation be preserved as much as possible - who has concerns within
          his office that the SCA be viewed by the police as a "good"
          organization instead of one that has to be "watched" all the time -
          you would be totally correct to discuss with this person that minor
          difficulties can be handled within the framework of the constabulary,
          and letting her know that if she has concerns in the future, you and
          the constables would be willing to help her in any way so that her
          event is as enjoyable and safe for her as possible! That in my
          opinion, is the measure of a good officer.

          But as usual, Wulfstan and I do not agree - anyone who is suprised by
          that is probably a newcomer! <chuckle>

          Kate
          Who is also a Sr. Constable
          *and before you assume, my opinion is my own!
        • Liane Kennedy
          I do agree with the second part- letting her know that if.... And that can be worked in with You know if you call the Police in, you are doing eveyone a
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I do agree with the second part- "letting her know that if...." And that can be worked in with "You
            know if you call the Police in, you are doing eveyone a great service-including yourself and the
            Police- by also letting us know. That way we can have the Constable at the gate know what's going
            on, and someone to guide them in, and maybe clear a path". The problem here is that by calling the
            Police this Good gentle has also changed hats- and is no longer "Lady Thus&such" but is now
            "Ms.Taxpayer", and when you're wearing the Constable Hat, you should not be telling "Ms Taxpayer"
            what to do. Hats, roles- very important to keep them separate, and remember which one you're
            wearing- and so easy to forget.
            W

            Lady Kateryn de Ver wrote:

            > However, as the person responsible for safety and security at a large
            > event, who is by extension also concerned for the welfare of the
            > other 800 people or so on site, and who is concerned that the SCA
            > reputation be preserved as much as possible - who has concerns within
            > his office that the SCA be viewed by the police as a "good"
            > organization instead of one that has to be "watched" all the time -
            > you would be totally correct to discuss with this person that minor
            > difficulties can be handled within the framework of the constabulary,
            > and letting her know that if she has concerns in the future, you and
            > the constables would be willing to help her in any way so that her
            > event is as enjoyable and safe for her as possible! That in my
            > opinion, is the measure of a good officer.
            >
            > But as usual, Wulfstan and I do not agree - anyone who is suprised by
            > that is probably a newcomer! <chuckle>
            >
            > Kate
            > Who is also a Sr. Constable
            > *and before you assume, my opinion is my own!
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > wkconstabulary-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com or go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wkconstabulary
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          • Lady Kateryn de Ver
            Hats, roles- very important to keep them separate, and remember which one you re ... It is just as easy to forget the hat that you are NOT wearing. Kate
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hats, roles- very important to keep them separate, and remember
              which one you're
              > wearing- and so easy to forget.
              > W

              It is just as easy to forget the hat that you are NOT wearing.

              Kate
            • paul morris
              Its DEAD Ladies and Gentles let it be. Al was letting us read a report out of courtesy, not out of need, and I wish to say that it is always best to talk to
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Its DEAD Ladies and Gentles let it be. Al was letting us read a report out of courtesy, not out of need, and I wish to say that it is always best to talk to people individually BEFORE the time bomb explodes.... :)
                Rowan

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Lady Kateryn de Ver"
                Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:12:18 -0000
                To: wkconstabulary@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [West Constables] West Kingdom Constable's Report

                Hats, roles- very important to keep them separate, and remember
                which one you're
                > wearing- and so easy to forget.
                > W

                It is just as easy to forget the hat that you are NOT wearing.

                Kate


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT




                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                wkconstabulary-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com or go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wkconstabulary



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                --
                __________________________________________________________
                Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
                http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

                Search Smarter - get the new eXact Search Bar for free!
                http://www.exactsearchbar.com/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.